Dapol N gauge 59 out of abeyance

[steam-driven boy]

Hi,

I'm just wondering if the corrections noted to the CAD image should be re-posted, or at least linked to, at the Dapol Digest?

I'm sure I've seen it mentioned on this forum several times before that Dapol are mostly unaware of potentially useful information here, and at this stage when it could possibly be of most use to them.

I have considered posting links there myself, but I'm concerned that may be thought presumptive by the originating authors.

 

I'll be pre-ordering the National Power version from KMRC as well as my most longed for ARC livery version.

 

Regards, Gerry.

[scottystitch]

Rails have announced a G&W liveried 59 206 as an exclusive:

 

https://railsofsheffield.com/products/class-59-59206-john-f-yeoman-freightliner?_pos=3&_sid=758b398bc&_ss=r&mc_cid=4cb2e658e1&mc_eid=69d4704d8c

 

Best

 

Scott

[grahame]

10 hours ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

The shockers cover the middle axle,not the front,this is a good start

 

Middle on 001, 103 and 206.

 

 

 

 

 

[newbryford]

1 hour ago, steam-driven boy said:

Hi,

I'm just wondering if the corrections noted to the CAD image should be re-posted, or at least linked to, at the Dapol Digest?

I'm sure I've seen it mentioned on this forum several times before that Dapol are mostly unaware of potentially useful information here, and at this stage when it could possibly be of most use to them.

I have considered posting links there myself, but I'm concerned that may be thought presumptive by the originating authors.

 

 

 

I'm sure that if Dapol don't have their eyes on this thread, there are others on here that would readily pass the information on.

No need for white text.

 

[TomE]

Interestingly the CAD shown for the RoS model has the correct layout for the bogies: 

 

Still has the unnecessary underframe cutouts, truncated beading and extra body side ribs though. 

 

Tom. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by TomE

[Les1952]

54 minutes ago, TomE said:

Interestingly the CAD shown for the RoS has the correct layout for the bogies: 

 

Still has the unnecessary underframe cutouts, truncated beading and extra body side ribs though. 

 

Tom. 

 

I suspect  given that not everyone lays track to the same standard those frame cutouts are highly necessary if the model is to stay on the rails on some of its possible purchasers' layouts. (including my new German one with 8.5 inch curves on a 1 in 25 bank).

 

Of course you could do away with them, reduce the number of sales and spread the development cost between a smaller number of models- but then there would be complaints about the high cost of the model.

 

Manufacturers can't win.

 

Les

[TomE]

56 minutes ago, Les1952 said:

 

I suspect  given that not everyone lays track to the same standard those frame cutouts are highly necessary if the model is to stay on the rails on some of its possible purchasers' layouts. (including my new German one with 8.5 inch curves on a 1 in 25 bank).

 

Of course you could do away with them, reduce the number of sales and spread the development cost between a smaller number of models- but then there would be complaints about the high cost of the model.

 

Manufacturers can't win.

 

Les

Neither the Dapol or Farish Class 66 have them, so I really don’t see a reason for them on the 59 either. This is, after all, supposed to be a “next generation” model, not a several generations ago model with large chunks of it missing but still with a “next generation” price tag. 
 

Tom. 

[grahame]

On 21/07/2021 at 22:56, Les1952 said:

 

I suspect  given that not everyone lays track to the same standard those frame cutouts are highly necessary if the model is to stay on the rails on some of its possible purchasers' layouts. (including my new German one with 8.5 inch curves on a 1 in 25 bank).

 

It would seem rather unfortunate and possibly churlish if we were to end up with a compromised model just so it could be used on a few German layouts with 8.5" curves (and which would be unlikely to run a 1/148 scale British model anyway) especially when it has not been necessary for previous similar models (such as the Farish and Dapol class 66 and the CJM class 59).

 

There are already a good many current models with the recommendation that they should not be used on curves less that 10" or whatever. And even in the real world there is stock that is labelled with advice not to transverse curves of less than X chains. But yes, of course, manufacturers can't win in trying to satisfy everyone and every possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by grahame

[steam-driven boy]

On 21/07/2021 at 22:56, Les1952 said:

 

I suspect  given that not everyone lays track to the same standard those frame cutouts are highly necessary if the model is to stay on the rails on some of its possible purchasers' layouts. (including my new German one with 8.5 inch curves on a 1 in 25 bank).

 

Of course you could do away with them, reduce the number of sales and spread the development cost between a smaller number of models- but then there would be complaints about the high cost of the model.

 

Manufacturers can't win.

 

Les

Hi,

I'm reminded of the excellent Waton by eldavo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molemPGx4fI

Quote

...< 7" radius curve...

4:40 time in. An image hard to forget for those of us with a squeamish disposition.

[Les1952]

14 hours ago, grahame said:

 

It would seem rather unfortunate and possibly churlish if we were to end up with a compromised model just so it could be used on a few German layouts with 8.5" curves (and which would be unlikely to run a 1/148 scale British model anyway) especially when it has not been necessary for previous similar models (such as the Farish and Dapol class 66 and the CJM class 59).

 

There are already a good many current models with the recommendation that they should not be used on curves less that 10" or whatever. And even in the real world there is stock that is labelled with advice not to transverse curves of less than X chains. But yes, of course, manufacturers can't win in trying to satisfy everyone and every possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It won't be on mine- I don't do current UK outline and don't intend to start in the future. 

 

However I'm not the only one by a very large margin who has to build in tight curves.  With houses being made smaller and smaller (Still!) the space for a model railway is getting smaller and smaller.  The majority of potential young entrants to the hobby want trains to run a distance- and that means round and round.  How do I know?- talking to them by the hundred at shows and elsewhere.  Tight curves may be a curse but if the hobby is to survive into another generation then it is a curse we will have to live with.

 

Incidentally my push-pull sets don't make some of the compromises of UK outline N-gauge.  The scale-length coaches couple gangway to gangway on the straight and the engineering to make this happen is out of sight.  The sharp curves are offstage- and are tighter than I would like to keep the onstage curves as large as possible.  My UK outline layouts don't go below Radius 2 apart from the colliery line on Hawthorn Dene which never had anything larger than an 0-6-0 tank with hoppers running, and where the Radius 1 curves were hidden.  R2 corners are all hidden.

 

To return to the Class 59.  The CAD isn't the final version - stated on one of the pics shown elsewhere - and the cutouts (and grilles) may be legacy items since corrected.

 

Les 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Les1952 said:

 

Tight curves may be a curse but if the hobby is to survive into another generation then it is a curse we will have to live with.

 

 

 

Les, that's rubbish. Regular as clockwork doom mongers foretell the end of the hobby and that it won't survive. Yet funnily enough it always has and, current external worldwide issues like covid aside, it is in pretty good health. Somehow I very much doubt that it won't survive unless we adopt even tighter minimum curves than the current British R1 standard and start designing locomotives with cut-outs in the sole-bars.

[BernardTPM]

13 hours ago, Les1952 said:

To return to the Class 59.  The CAD isn't the final version - stated on one of the pics shown elsewhere - and the cutouts (and grilles) may be legacy items since corrected.

Legacy from what though? The Class 66 which has a very similar body form (including the visible girder underframe) doesn't have them and that was introduced well over a decade ago, some time in the 2000s.

[John M Upton]

RevolutioN just announced a Class 59, and its already well advanced. Dapol snoozed too long?

 

Oh dear...

[Davexoc]

3 hours ago, John M Upton said:

RevolutioN just announced a Class 59, and its already well advanced. Dapol snoozed too long?

 

Oh dear...

 

Well as RevolutioN are doing the original Foster Yeoman variants, I know where my money is going....

[TomE]

13 hours ago, John M Upton said:

RevolutioN just announced a Class 59, and its already well advanced. Dapol snoozed too long?

 

Oh dear...

 

Snooze you lose!

 

Tom. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by TomE

[bingley hall]

7 hours ago, TomE said:

 

Snooze you loose!

 

Tom. 

 

The first of what I am sure will be the first of many well thought out, quality posts to come in this thread.

[Chris M]

1 hour ago, bingley hall said:

 

The first of what I am sure will be the first of many well thought out, quality posts to come in this thread.

Can’t see anything wrong with the odd lighthearted comment.

[Chris M]

Not good for us N gaugers. Two companies tooling up for the same model while other models (45/46, 120 DMU for instance) don’t get made. I’m not criticising either company, just saying it’s a shame that scarce resources (funding for new models) is going to be used to duplicate the same model. Revolution usually make one batch and Dapol usually make several and it appears that Revolution may be further along the road than Dapol. It may end up that the two never appear on sale at the same time. 

[TomE]

3 hours ago, bingley hall said:

 

The first of what I am sure will be the first of many well thought out, quality posts to come in this thread.

Ok, maybe that was a bit flippant, however this is what happens when you announce something and then do nothing about it.
 

I strongly suspect the only reason Dapol even made an announcement about their 59 coming out of abeyance was because they got wind someone else was working on one. It remains to be seen whether the Dapol one is as far along as they say it is, or whether that was just an attempt to dissuade the other party. Regardless, this situation is entirely a result of Dapol sitting on their hands and stringing N Gauge modellers along for however many years it’s been since the initial announcement. 
 

Tom. 

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

Not good for us N gaugers. Two companies tooling up for the same model while other models (45/46, 120 DMU for instance) don’t get made. I’m not criticising either company, just saying it’s a shame that scarce resources (funding for new models) is going to be used to duplicate the same model. 

 

Unfortunately it's not the first time, think class 66 and Voyagers, and it probably won't be the last. On one hand it does offer choice of supplier, while on the other it restricts overall product range. And, to date, companies duplicating products are still in business.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by grahame

[steam-driven boy]

21 minutes ago, TomE said:

...It remains to be seen whether the Dapol one is as far along as they say it is, or whether that was just an attempt to dissuade the other party...

 

Tom. 

Hi,

From Joel on the Dapol Digest yesterday:

Quote

...We are expecting the first shots in a couple of months...

Regards, Gerry.

[Revolution Ben]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Unfortunately it's not the first time, think class 66 and Voyagers, and it probably won't be the last. On one hand it does offer choice of supplier, while on the other it restricts overall product range. And, to date, companies duplicating products are still in business.

 

 

 

Grahame has hit the nail on the head here.

 

It is always tempting to say 'if only they'd done X' but on the other hand I think it shows N to be in a strong position when two models of the same prototype are produced, and gives the consumer choice.

 

Plus the Class 59s are a historically important locomotive - both in their own right as the first US-made diesels and first privately owned locomotives to run on British Rail, and also as the  direct antecedents to the dominant freight locomotive in Britain for the last quarter century.

 

cheers

[AndrueC]

On 15/07/2021 at 22:41, grahame said:

 

Yep, and the prototype HST as well as the class 142 and 33s before that. Plus they're working on a retooled SR tank loco (M7?).

Supposedly also a new Super Voyager although it's not entirely clear how 're-tooled' that is going to be. Retailers seem to think it's going to be all singing all dancing but a response on their forums seems to indicate it would just be a re-run of the previous version with a few tweaks.

[njee20]

They've never said anything to the contrary, it's always just been a new batch of the old model. They've tended to change them to Next-18 along the way, but not much else.

[Suffolk Rob]

I'd agree that duplication is less than ideal but neither is an approach of "marking territory" and then putting models into abeyance.

 

Different management at the time as I recall but I vaguely remember the fanfare of Dapol's "magnificent seven" being coupled with information on how they could all be put into production v quickly and thinking that was about staking a claim. Can't now remember all of the 7, the 26 was one that did arrive fairly promptly but so were the 92 and Pendalino as I recall.

 

I don't see a problem for Revolution with the duplication- their focus is facilitating the 59 rather than business profit.

 

Duplication on this one model may be a good thing in the longer term if the longer-standing producers realise that announcing an intention will not stop some of the new boys stepping in where announcing is not translating into action. The risk of course is that Dapol's tentative steps into new N tooling may grind to a halt.